I happen to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst presidents in our nation's history. Corruption, government abuse, treason and daily scandal were the norm under their rule. Bill is a useful idiot who can't keep his mouth shut or his zipper up and Hillary is an America hating godless communist power monger. These are my personal opinions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions still wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over the Democrat Party, the socialist movement and the national press. Their goals are to completely eliminate our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc., and these are just for starters.

I believe the overall goal of their movement is to completely do away with the U.S. Constitution and in its place, install socialist/totalitarian rule over America. Furthermore, I believe they wish to do away with our national sovereignty altogether and subject America to domination by the U.N. and other world bodies.

Now you may call me a nutcase if you wish, but that's the way I see it. I believe that in the last century, FDR, LBJ, RMN, Carter, Clinton, et al, successfully introduced many socialist programs into our government and our way of life and with the help of the media and atheist institutions like the ACLU began systematically destroying the fabric of our society. In the process, they've moved both of our major political parties way over to the left. They (the liberals/marxists/socialists) have almost completely taken over all of our government institutions and agencies, the judiciary, the press, the Universities, our education systems, our charities, even our churches.

I believe that as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their like minded socialist minions have any influence or power over the government or either of the two major political parties, our nation and all of our freedoms are in extreme danger.

Free Republic was created in 1996 as a place where liberty-minded individuals could gather and share the news and discuss the Clinton scandals and other government abuses. I had hoped that the truth of the Clinton corruption would come out in time to prevent his re-election in 1996. Didn't happen. So we moved on. If we couldn't block his re-election, well, perhaps we could help with his impeachment. He was impeached, but we could not remove him.

So next, we decide to do all in our power to ensure that his second in command does not get to the Whitehouse. Even though GWB was not my first choice, once he won the Republican nomination, most of us rallied behind him and fought like the dickens to get him elected. Then we fought again to block the attempted Gore coup d'etat. Our Free Republic chapters mobilized all across the nation and there were thousands of rallies and protests in hundreds of cities objecting loudly to Gore's attempted takeover.

Then we all thanked God when Bush was finally declared the winner and off to Washington we went to celebrate at the Free Republic George W. Bush Inaugural Ball (I).

Then we all thank God again when after the cowardly attack on our nation by a gang of murderous international terrorists we realize how close we were to complete collapse and national destruction had the socialist U.N. loving Al Gore been in charge. Thank God for President Bush!

And I haven't even mentioned how evil I truly believe the official Democrat Party platform is. Here's a partial laundry list of what the Democrat Party supports and promotes: abortion; homosexuality; feminaziism; environmentalism; government control over every aspect of our lives and society; socialized health care; disarmament of the American people; subjugation of the U.S. to the U.N.; the complete elimination of our national sovereignty; complete destruction of our basic traditional family unit; loss of personal freedoms and individual liberty. In other words, complete destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and our American way of life.

I came to the conclusion several years ago that there is no way this republic can survive if we allow the Democrat Party to maintain control over our government and other institutions. If America is to survive as we know it, Bill and Hillary Clinton and all the current democrat/socialist power mongers who share their philosophy and visions for a socialist America and socialist world must be soundly rejected and defeated at the polls.

And not just at the presidential level. They must be rejected and removed from both houses of Congress and from our State houses and local legislatures. For example, if we cannot remove them from the Senate, then there is no hope for reestablishing a judiciary built on the original intent of the Constitution and the rule-of-law. The liberals and socialists must be rooted out of our congress and our judiciary. Our free republic, our freedom and even liberty itself depends on it.

Just my humble opinion and why I act the way I do. I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Futhermore, I believe wholeheartedly in the original intent of our Founding Fathers and in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

God gave us these unalienable rights and they can never be taken from us by man or government. And we are ALL to be treated justly and equally under the law.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Yes, the Founders established a government and set forth the plan for us to govern ourselves.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The government has become destructive to these ends. One of the main purposes of our government is to defend, preserve and protect our liberty. It has been doing just the opposite. Therefore, it is our right and duty to alter or abolish it. I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party.

I normally stay out of arguments between FReepers, but several of your comments in this discussion simply must be challenged.

You called the notion that we are a republic and not a democracy "crap" and an insult to those who study history. Please refrain from using the Constitution as toilet paper like that. The US Constitution specifically guarantees to the states a republican form of government. You will not find a single reference to "democracy" in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other important document of our nation's founding. You will find several references to "republican" forms of government.

Your condescending comment to Chad about taking his opposition to democracy far away from all the "normal people" was rather pointless. Chad is exactly right that we need to do all we can to protect and reinforce the republican form of government and prevent the slide into "democracy" that makes both the constitution and the rule of law maleable into whatever a simple majority of a district court says they are.

Finally your statement that Chad (and by extension Jim Robinson) are arguing for a one party system is so absurd that I doubt anyone else here would take it seriously. However, absurd or not, it must be repudiated. Nobody is advocating a one party system. Jim and Chad and many others here recognize that the only viable way right now to halt the degradation of our country by the democrats is to vote for republicans since there is no viable 3rd party at the moment. If a 3rd party can ultimately arise with the ability to actually defeat the dems rather than split the conservative/moderate vote to give the dems victory thru plurality, then such a party will be a welcome addition. Until then, however, the actions of the Ross Perots and Pat Buchanans with their "People's Party" or "Reform Party" or "Pissed-off-because-I-never-get-my-way Party" will serve only to hand more power back to the democrats.

1,054
posted on 10/21/2003 9:18:46 AM PDT
by VRWCmember
(We apologise for the fault in the taglines. Those responsible have been sacked.)

Nope, it's neither. It's a privately owned institution, made available to its members. The members have no "stakeholder" interest and no voting rights, so it is not a democracy. The members do not elect the management or decision-makers, so it is not a republic. It's more like a large gathering of individuals who are welcomed by the owner to stay as long as they abide by the rules of the institution. Those who refuse to abide by the owner's wishes are required to leave, as is the owner's prerogative.

By the way, Jim, I think you do a great job and offer a great website. I spend way too much time here.

1,055
posted on 10/21/2003 9:25:55 AM PDT
by VRWCmember
(We apologise for the fault in the taglines. Those responsible have been sacked.)

"...is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?"

No. There isn't. For one thing, who decides if someone else's personal behavior is "republican"? Is there a "Board of Arbiters of Republican Behavior" somewhere? And what sort of personal behavior are you considering? Is there a "republican" way to act in a restaurant, in a car, at family reunions, at work, etc? Or are you merely trying to go around your elbow to get to your thumb and say that Jim Robinson should conduct his website like a republican form of government? What point ARE you trying to make? Show your cards instead of pussyfooting around.

No board of review necessary, no compulsion. Wouldn't really be republican, then, would it?

At it's most basic level, this country is a democratic republic to give each a voice, while avoiding the potential for a tyranny of a majority. Simple democracy lends itself to mob rule when swept up with the passions of the moment.

Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner, and calling others on it when they do so. That seems like appropriately republican behavior to me.

You claim [accountability] is not there yet it is excercised every time you enter the voting booth.

Where exactly did I claim it's not there?

My question had more to do with elected politicians' accountability than with an individual voter's accountability.

I agree that a voter is accountable when he votes, but that's not the full extent of his responsibility. If it were, a politician voted into office could essentially enact whatever policy he'd like, even if it goes against the wishes of his constituents, because hey, he got the vote, right?

It's is the voter's responsibility to hold the elected official accountable for his actions. For instance, if a Republican we voted into office began to support tax and spending increases or other leftist agenda, would we not write and call in voicing our opposition? If we didn't, we'd be supporting political fiefdom.

If we are to actually achieve what Jim laid out in this post the focus has to be how to turn the mushy middle of the voters, those that actually decide the elections, into conservatives. That will take care of the "RINO" problem.

I'm for it! So where do we start? :-)

P. S. While Ron Paul is an unbending fiscal conservative, I'd still hesitate to vote for him for President, largely because of his anti-war stance.

Thanks for your comments Jim. I agree with you with all my being. The democrat party is out to destroy this country with their policies and hate toward that which is good and just. God bless you and keep the good fight until the battle is won. I'll be there along side!

1,065
posted on 10/21/2003 10:54:46 AM PDT
by Lucky2
(If I find out you're a liberal, please leave me the hell alone and crawl back into your hole.)

We need to STUDY the DemocRAT playbook! They're patient,perservering,and present an agenda,to which they all march in "lockstep"!! They ALL HANG TOUGH, TOGETHER,and firmly adhere to the doctrine of "incrementalism"---why?? because IT WORKS!!

Howdy old chum, I hope you are well. I see the differences are the same.

The political activism you call for must actualy result in something beyond self-congratualtions, and by wielding the power of party (a party transformed to a large part, but not a perfect part) we could actually have real reform.

I, also, long for the days when the fight against the factionalism of Clintonism united us all in common purpose, but time doesn't stand still. It made for an interesting and varied fellowship, didn't it?

In your call to "work for the prize" we must all examine ourselves. Lord knows, I've tried and I hope it sometimes shows. I posted long ago:

Rant cannot restore the Republic; Party can. Each of us should examine where we as individual actors in the restoration of constituional deliberative democracy are limited by ideology or craven pragmatism. Let us compete amongst ourselves by showing who can post their Battle Flag higher up the slope of the New Left's Little Round Top. Put down your swords when speaking to your brothers and sisters.

I will grant that you always make the effort to make the arguement, and for that I applaud your fairness. But I have always seen the prudent course to be the capture of the Republican Party along with a reinterpretation of its vision along conservative principles.

In that journey I never feel less than enriched by your contributions. The stew must have its bay leaf, I always say.

But I would hold that the current Republican Party is transforming to a much less dangerous animal and this site is a small reason why. Incrementalism can be transitory damage if the pressure is kept on the subject.

Remember, I said "can" and not "has". There is much left to do whichever course one choses.

Jim, some time back, has clearly made his choice and I doubt that he will become complacent or too compliant in his association with this vehicle. Others, may, and have, but he seems still as independent in thought as ever.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but what seems to be the problem here is semantics.You called the notion that we are a republic and not a democracy "crap" and an insult to those who study history. To say we are are not democracy and that democracy is evil is crap. It is crappy to say students of history don't know the difference. It is total crap to insinuate that the founding fathers did not take the best of Athenian democracy and the best of Roman Republicanism and create a system betwixt the two to arrive a unique system of checks and balances...Please refrain from using the Constitution as toilet paper like that. The US Constitution specifically guarantees to the states a republican form of government.For the People, by the People, of the People...nuff said...You will not find a single reference to "democracy" in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other important document of our nation's founding. You will find several references to "republican" forms of government.If you can find one reference in the administration's position on Iraq that calls for instituting a repulican form of goverment there I'll be amazed...We are trying to form a democracy in Iraq that will show up the neighbors...You didn't get the memo???Your condescending comment to Chad about taking his opposition to democracy far away from all the "normal people" was rather pointless. Chad is exactly right that we need to do all we can to protect and reinforce the republican form of government and prevent the slide into "democracy" that makes both the constitution and the rule of law maleable into whatever a simple majority of a district court says they are.Chad is in Africa and Fairbanks is in Alaska. Silly me for such sophmoric humor...If you equate democracy with "mob rule" then we're back to semantics...Finally your statement that Chad (and by extension Jim Robinson) are arguing for a one party system is so absurd that I doubt anyone else here would take it seriously. However, absurd or not, it must be repudiated. Nobody is advocating a one party system.To quote Jim, "I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy." and then,"Therefore, it is our right and duty to alter or abolish it. I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party." As I see it the country is in a 49/51 split. We must destroy the other half. If there is no longer a Democrat/opposition party who is left, Greens? Republican lite? I guess in theory that qualifies for a multi-party system...Jim and Chad and many others here recognize that the only viable way right now to halt the degradation of our country by the democrats is to vote for republicans since there is no viable 3rd party at the moment. A viable way for the country to work is to come to a consensus, or worst yet, a compromise. Let the checks and balances work so that all American can live with the least odius form of government... Maybe that is too forgiving for you but what is thate altenative? Civil War?

I'm sorry it seems to have upset you, but he was quite correct in saying that we are not a democracy, and the democracy (absent the restraint on mob rule provided by the rights of individuals) is absolutely and objectively evil.

The United States is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, administered by democratic means. The Constitution of the United States, is supposed to place limits upon the power of the majority, based on the inalienable rights of the constituent members of the republic.

There is nothing inherently good about democracy at all. It is a tool. A means to an end.. which can be used for good, or for evil. The inherent good is liberty, and respect for individual rights.

If democracy is limited such that it universally upholds the rights of individuals, and produces a society where people are free to choose their own peaceful path, it is a force for good.

If democracy is used (as it is all too often used today) to subjugate the rights of individuals in the name of socialism, false civil rights, protection from ourselves, and nanny-statism... then it is a force for evil.

Unfortunately it is people like yourself, who are woefully confused as to the nature of good and evil in government, and who assert democracy as an inherent good in itself, who are destroying the notions of rights and liberty, and aiding the progression toward our inevitable doom.

Jim, I'm new here so forgive me if I'm out of line, but what you espouse in your well written treatise isn't a defense of Conservatism. IMHO, simply supporting Republicans instead of Democrats is akin to traveling the road to socialism at 35 MPH instead of 55 MPH.

In my view, it pays to look at the larger picture. The conservative revolution that started in 1994 was in direct result of the election of Bill Clinton. Had George Bush Sr. been reelected, we would have continued on the path toward higher taxes, more government, and more liberalism. The election of Bill Clinton was the single most important event in the growth of the modern conservative movement, especially the growth of conservative domination of talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh. It also was the event that led to the Republican capture of both houses of Congress.

The problem as I see it now is that Republicans are taking Conservatives for granted. How else can you explain support for huge increases in farm supports, protectionist steel policies, billions in additional spending for public schools (including new federal mandates), support for bans on weapons in violation of the 2nd amendment, billions for fighting AIDS in Africa, billions more in foriegn aid, and now, a huge increase in the Medicare entitlement to enable a prescription drug benefit.

What we aren't seeing is an effort to "roll back decades of governmental largesse, root out political fraud and corruption, and champion causes which further conservatism in America." Instead, what we're seeing is an effort to play to the liberal sectors of our society by borrowing on the backs of our children to support the growth of the modern welfare state.

As Conservatives, IMHO, it is our duty to fight liberalism with every breath, whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans. Simply accepting "liberalism light" from the Republican party is not the answer. Giving George W. Bush a free pass is a not an option.

Anyway, I hope we can agree to disagree and I thank you for your contributions to the Conservative cause.

A viable way for the country to work is to come to a consensus, or worst yet, a compromise. Let the checks and balances work so that all American can live with the least odius form of government...

Consensus and compromise to the "democrat" leaders means bending over and taking whatever they say. It means total and complete capitulation to their agenda. No thanks.

Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but what seems to be the problem here is semantics.

If you want to get wrapped up around the axle over semantics, that's fine with me. But I think there was a very good reason (as expounded in the continental congress debates) that the founding fathers specifically eschewed the use of the word "democracy" in our founding documents. If you want to equate the representative republican form of government and "For the people, of the people, and by the people" to mean "democracy" that is your prerogative, but many of us will continue to recognize the distinction and prefer a republic over a democracy.

To quote Jim, "I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. ... I propose doing so by destroying enemy number one of the Constitution, the corrupt socialist Democrat Party."

I'll not try to put words in Jim's mouth, but I guess he is proposing not the elimination of the Democrat Party so that only the GOP remains, but rather the destruction of the far left leadership of the democrat party through activism at the polls and in educating the voters of its true agenda. If successful, the GOP would become dominant, but the democrat party would have to move back toward the center and return to American principles in order to maintain a two-party system, or be replaced by a new "third" party that would become the "second" party by default. After all, that's how the Republican Party came into being in the first place.

1,078
posted on 10/21/2003 12:29:03 PM PDT
by VRWCmember
(We apologise for the fault in the taglines. Those responsible have been sacked.)

Go Jim go! Clintoon received $12 million for his memoirs. Hitlery received $8 million for her memoirs. That totals $20 million for memories from two people who for 8 years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy.

You will not find a single reference to "democracy" in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other important document of our nation's founding.

Thanks for the Federalist references. I should have worded my statement: "You will not find a single reference to our country being founded as a 'democracy' in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, ..."

1,085
posted on 10/21/2003 12:47:17 PM PDT
by VRWCmember
(We apologise for the fault in the taglines. Those responsible have been sacked.)

Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner...

I personally don't see the "potential excesses of mobs and majorities" happening at FR. And if Jim doesn't see it, and since each is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, like you just said, then it is a moot point.

Well said Jim. Thank you for continuing FreeRepublic and making it a place where we can vent and also come together on common ground.

As for my political position; it pretty much reflects your own. As for morals, the Democratic Party is the most depraved group of individuals ever to come along. Their stand on abortion alone is intrinsically evil and needs to be halted and reversed.

JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt.

What upsets me is aguments that say it is either, or. Democracy vs. Republic. We live in a Constitutional Repulic that is a democracy. Clear. I mean do you really think the system is broken? That you are being oppressed by the tyrrannical minority? Are people that agree with, good, and people who disagree, evil? By your standards, who assert democracy as an inherent good in itself, who are destroying the notions of rights and liberty, and aiding the progression toward our inevitable doom Am I evil?

Sabertooth wrote: In a republic, we endeavor to avoid tyrannies of majorities. Yet, while the freedom of association allows folks to gather in groups whose members may not reflect republicanism, subjecting themselves to the whims and rants of majorities if they choose to do so, is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?

wimpycat wrote: I hardly think comparing FR to the U.S. government would be an accurate analogy. FR is a benevolent dictatorship. The leadership is unelected, the leadership owns all the property. In exchange, we get to do pretty much what we want, and if the decisions made are somewhat arbitrary, well, then those are the breaks. It's not like Cuba, where we can't leave if we want...we're even allowed to go back and forth between FR and certain "unfriendly" countries, with no repercussions. And some of us take full advantage of it. Not me, though.

...is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?"

No. There isn't. For one thing, who decides if someone else's personal behavior is "republican"? Is there a "Board of Arbiters of Republican Behavior" somewhere? And what sort of personal behavior are you considering? Is there a "republican" way to act in a restaurant, in a car, at family reunions, at work, etc? Or are you merely trying to go around your elbow to get to your thumb and say that Jim Robinson should conduct his website like a republican form of government? What point ARE you trying to make? Show your cards instead of pussyfooting around

Sabertooth wrote: The point is personal conduct, and each is the abiter of their own. No board of review necessary, no compulsion. Wouldn't really be republican, then, would it? At it's most basic level, this country is a democratic republic to give each a voice, while avoiding the potential for a tyranny of a majority. Simple democracy lends itself to mob rule when swept up with the passions of the moment. Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner, and calling others on it when they do so. That seems like appropriately republican behavior to me. How about you?

_______________________________

Well said Saber.. Excellent exchange between you & wimpy that is typical of the dichotomy on FR, a site that loudly proclaims itself for liberty, but then asserts that a website can't be moderated under republican principles of personal conduct. How will we know unless we give it a try?

Your precious democracy votes to steal what is mine, and to give it to others who have not earned. It votes to subjugate and control my dominion over my own otherwise peaceful life. It is evil that is done by your precious majority. And all the while, "democracy" is bandied about as if it represents some precious and unassailable good, in and of itself.

Are people that agree with, good, and people who disagree, evil?

People that steal from me are evil (even if they do so under cover of democracy).

People that violate my rights are evil (even if they do so under cover of democracy).

Consensus and compromise, are part of checks and balances. There is no capitualation in compromise. When you argue whith your spouse or family member do you try and destroy their position? Or do listen and reach an understanding? Being right and winning can sometimes be a pyrrhic victory (back to the Romans).

We are a republic and a democracy! And yes it is hair-splitting semantics.Way back when it might not have started out that way. Land owners, slaves and women can vote now. Universal sufferage and all that.

Want to go back to like it was before?

I always find it interesting the the names people use when posting: Madame de Winter serves the Cardinal, whom do you serve???

betty boop: JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt.

_____________________________________

So true. So true. 1,091 -AG-

In effect, the belief that we ~must~ control mans "virtue" is one if the prime reasons that even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order.

History shows that mandating virtue through prohibitionary laws foster contempt for social order.

Hey, when the left starts compromising in the direction of more freedom rather than less, and a return to the constitutionally limited government as established by our Founders then I'm all for it and we'll begin making some progress. But as long as compromise leads to even more government evil doing and more government abuse or means giving up even more of our liberty, our freedoms, our traditional American way of life, even our God, then I say not only no, but hell no!

"We are a republic and a democracy! And yes it is hair-splitting semantics."

Yes. Yes.

We ARE beyond dispute a representative democracy.

But there are things a simple majority cannot do in our system- a supermajority can, of course, do anything.

A simple majority cannot retain (or "grant" to use the disgusting common phrasing) new rights to the people, nor can a simple majority grant new powers to the government. Both have to be done by a supermajority through amendment of the Constitution.

This requirement for a supermajority is neccessary for the Constitution to survive .... and that is why we emphasize here the 'republican" nature of our government.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.